GRE Mock Test (New Pattern) - 1 - GRE MCQ

The blank in this sentence describes the Humason's career, which is described after the semicolon. He started as a janitor without a formal education and ended up working alongside a “legendary” scientist, so a good prediction would be something like remarkable. (C) singular means exactly that—in this context, “unusual” or “exceptional”—so it’s correct. (A) trivial means “unimportant.” This is incorrect as there’s no basis for saying the story of Humason's life is not important; if anything, the opposite is true. (B) succinct means “brief” or “concise.” There’s no indication that the story is short; indeed, it would be hard to tell the story of such a long and varied career in a concise manner. (D) quotidian, meaning “commonplace,” is the opposite of what’s needed. (E) ludicrous means “ridiculous” or “absurd,” which is much too negative to fit the sentence.

There are no obvious road signs here, so read the sentence carefully for clues to the blanks. The first sentence explains that cultural norms, or what a society views as acceptable, evolve over time. The two blanks describe two different views of the same piece of art, and each blank describes a different extreme, as indicated by “inordinately” (“exceeding limits”) and “utterly” (“to the highest degree”). Note that there’s no way to tell which way the views evolved; they may have gone from acceptable to unacceptable, or vice versa. You’ll have to consider both blanks to find words with the appropriate relationship. The only words that fit are (A) salacious, which means “morally offensive” or “indecent,” and (F) pedestrian, which in this context means “commonplace” or “mundane.” Taken together, they describe how a work of art can at one point be seen as shocking but later be seen as ordinary.

(B) adequate doesn’t fit with “inordinately.” It’s not possible to be extremely adequate—something either is or is not adequate. (C) trite means “boring” or “unoriginal.” This could potentially fit as one part of the comparison, but there’s no appropriately contrasting word for the second blank. (D) pensive means “thoughtful,” and (E) opulent means “lavish” or “luxurious”; neither of these fits into the context of art and cultural norms, and neither contrasts with a choice for the first blank.

Each blank here is supported by several clues, so start with whichever one you feel more comfortable with. The first blank says something about recipes for beef brisket. The opening clause of the sentence indicates that these recipes “vary widely,” and the detour road sign “but” means the blank will be the opposite of that—a word to indicate what they have in common. Similarity would be a good prediction. (A) affinity, or “close resemblance,” is a perfect match, so it’s the right answer for the first blank. (B) variance means “difference,” so it’s the opposite of what you’re looking for. (C) substitution might be tempting because it’s a word often used in cooking; if you’re out of one ingredient, you’d substitute another. However, it doesn’t fit the context here, since the sentence is describing a technique different preparations share, not one that replaces another.
The second blank describes why the “low and slow” technique is used. The first clause says that it’s “not a matter of taste but . . . ,” a detour construction, so the missing word must contrast with the idea that the cooking method is simply a personal preference. After a semicolon, which functions as a straight-ahead road sign here, the sentence indicates that without this method, the meat would be “too tough” to eat. Since cooking food in a way that makes it inedible defeats the purpose, predict something like necessity. (D) prerequisite, or “something that is necessary,” matches this prediction, so it’s the correct answer. (E) predilection means “a liking for,” which would fit if the cooking method were just a matter of taste. (F) propinquity, which means “a closeness or similarity to,” does not fit the context.

The passage describes the author's preferences for clarity, precision, and conciseness in writing. It then moves on to explain that these qualities were part of the criteria used in selecting essays for a collection. The author states, "I think I tried, as the Decider, to use overall value as the prime triage - and filtering mechanism in selecting this year's top essays." This indicates that the author is primarily focused on explaining and defending the selection criteria for the essays in the collection.

Let's analyze each option:
A) The passage does state that "conciseness and language use are only one aspect of what gives an essay worth" because the author mentions that "none of the shorter essays in the collection were included merely because they were short."
B) This option contradicts the author's view. The author actually appreciates essays of varying lengths, styles, and informalities, as long as they are valuable and well-written. Therefore, it is not supported by the passage.
C) The author finds taxonomic arguments about genres dull and irrelevant, indicating that strict categorization (taxonomy) does not apply well to writing as it might to scientific concepts.
D) The author explicitly mentions that shorter essays were not included just because they were short, implying that the length alone is not a criterion for the merit of an essay.
E) The author praises essays that are compact and free of unnecessary words, suggesting that economy of language enriches an essay.
Hence, the passage does not support option B, making it the correct answer for this question.

• Effusive: Expressing feelings of gratitude, pleasure, or approval in an unrestrained or heartfelt manner.
• Trenchant: Vigorous or incisive in expression or style.
• Sycophantic: Behaving or done in an obsequious way to gain advantage.
• Desultory: Lacking a plan, purpose, or enthusiasm.
• Caustic: Sarcastic in a scathing and bitter way.

Given that the criticism was demanding further evidence and was likely not positive, we can eliminate positive or neutral words. This leaves us with "trenchant" and "caustic," both of which describe strong, potentially harsh criticism.

• Flagging: Becoming tired or less dynamic; declining in strength.
• Multifaceted: Having many aspects or sides.
• Hackneyed: Lacking significance through having been overused; unoriginal.
• Ebullient: Cheerful and full of energy.
• Lackluster: Lacking in vitality, force, or conviction; uninspired or uninspiring.

The sentence describes the exhibition as having creativity and innovation, which are positive attributes. "Multifaceted" and "ebullient" both convey the idea of a dynamic, exciting exhibition. The other options do not fit the context of creativity and innovation.

• Indefatigable: Persisting tirelessly.
• Languid: Lacking energy or enthusiasm.
• Morose: Sullen and ill-tempered.
• Vivacious: Attractively lively and animated.
• Abject: Extremely bad, unpleasant, and degrading.

The sentence suggests that the mountaineers were motivated and energetic despite difficulties. "Indefatigable" and "vivacious" both suggest high levels of energy and a positive spirit, suitable for enduring harsh conditions. The other options imply negativity or lack of energy, which do not fit the context.

The correct answer to a primary purpose question summarizes what the author is trying to do in the passage. Here, the author uses cinematic depictions of Henry V to illustrate how contemporary culture influences the interpretation of art. Choice (A) misses the point; the author uses Shakespeare’s Henry V as an illustration, not for the purpose of describing the play itself. (B) distorts the author’s purpose, which is to illustrate the cultural influence, not to judge which influences are positive or negative. (C) is too broad; the passage isn’t about cinematic interpretations of literature writ large. (D) is too general in the same way as choice (C). So, choice (E) is the correct answer. It cites the effect of contemporary situations on the interpretation of literature, striking at the heart of what the author explores in the passage.

Evaluate the choices in light of this author’s scope and purpose. Choice (A) makes an irrelevant comparison. The author discusses the influence of historical and societal context on both Shakespeare’s play and the later film adaptations of it but never implies that one is more reflective of its societal context than the other. Choice (B) is correct; this paraphrases the author’s primary purpose, so he’s certain to agree with it. Choice (C) is incorrect. The author makes no effort to argue about what makes good cinema, only what influences it when it’s involved in interpreting classic literary works.

The total number of pets sold in March and April combined is 500. So, the equation is:

(Dogs sold in March + Cats sold in March) + (Dogs sold in April + Cats sold in April) = 500

Substitute the values:

(2x + x) + (4x + 3x) = 500

Simplifying:

3x + 7x = 500

10x = 500

Solve for x:

x = 50

Now, the number of dogs sold in March is 2x = 2 * 50 = 100.

So, the correct answer is b) 100.

The tone of the passage is neutral; even when describing Henry’s darker moments, the author passes no judgment. You can therefore reject choice (C), as the author is not doing a character study. Though choices (B) and (D) are mutually exclusive, they are both incorrect. The author states no preference for either of the film versions he describes. Choice (E) is incorrect because the author states no preference for cinematic versions that maintain greater fidelity to the source material. Choice (A) is correct; it matches the author’s purpose for the passage. In order for cultural events to influence the interpretation of classic literature, such literature must be interpretable.

Examine the answer choices one at a time and choose the one that follows from the passage. Choice (A) states that the Office of National Drug Control is concerned about teen tobacco use. While you may assume this to be a true statement, the passage doesn’t state this directly, commenting only on the office’s concern about teen marijuana use. Similarly, it is reasonable to think that choice (D) is true, but the passage only addresses Drug-Free America’s stance on the risks of marijuana, not the organization’s predictions of future use. The passage mentions claimed health benefits of marijuana, but it does not imply choice (B), that marijuana has health benefits for teens. Choice (C) is the correct answer. The passage states that officials believe teens to be acting, in part, in response to anti-tobacco warnings. Choice (E) may seem reasonable because the passage makes implications about teen perception of the risks of marijuana, but it contains no statements about teens’ feelings on the issue of legalization.

This question asks you to evaluate the possible connections and compare them to the information in the passage. Choice (A) seems possible, but the passage contains no information about drug use beyond marijuana and tobacco. Choice (B) makes a reference to information about tobacco use, but it distorts the passage, which states that teen tobacco use is down because teens seem to understand the risk of smoking, not because marijuana has been legalized in some states. Choice (C) is the most viable choice. The passage states that research on the medical uses of marijuana and the decision to legalize medical marijuana in some states contribute to the message that marijuana is not harmful. Choice (D) addresses antidrug organizations’ message on marijuana use. This is not a viable choice because the passage states that antidrug organizations maintain their message that marijuana is harmful and gives you no reason to think they would change their views upon legalization. Choice (E) is out of scope; the passage does not give any information on how legalizing marijuana will affect the risks of the drug’s use.

This question asks you to identify a detail in the passage. The “mixed message” referred to in the stem is found in the passage’s fourth sentence, introduced with the contrast key word “While.” That sentence outlines the contrast between antidrug messages (marijuana impairs judgment and hampers brain development) and research about possible health benefits. That matches choice (B) to a T. Choice (E) misses the scope of the passage by including a statement about the opinions of teens’ parents, who aren’t mentioned. Choice (A) brings in information about the age-appropriateness of marijuana use, another topic that isn’t considered in this passage. Choice (D) states that marijuana use is safer than tobacco use, but the passage never makes that comparison. Choice (C) accurately states the inconsistent legal status of marijuana, but it doesn’t answer the question. The mixed message teens receive is about the health effects—not the legality—of marijuana use.

When asked to cast doubt on a conclusion, as you are here, first locate the author’s conclusion. Then, find an answer choice that contradicts it in some way. This question stem explicitly directs you to the last sentence of the passage, where the author is defending the mayor from criticism, asserting that the growing inequality of wages is beyond her control. Since the passage is saying, “This isn’t the mayor’s fault,” predict a correct answer that says, “No, this is the mayor’s fault.”
Choice (A) should stand out immediately as going against the passage. If the mayor could have initiated policies that would have educated those who are now earning less, then her policies—to be precise, her policy of inaction—is at least partially to blame for the problem of wage inequality. This is exactly the sort of additional evidence you want, and choice (A) is correct.
The wrong choices largely focus on misleading shifts in terminology from the passage. Choice (B) sidesteps the wage issue, as more employment of high school graduates would not necessarily raise their wages. Choice (C)’s logic requires that we assume “blue-collar” equals “less-educated,” which is too large a shift in terminology. Choice (D) only discusses taxes and avoids wages altogether. Choice (E) only mentions protection of “city workers,” again avoiding the education issue from the passage.

Based on the first sentence alone, it is not possible to predict accurately for the first two blanks. The tour's end could lead to a variety of emotions. The second sentence, however, begins with a detour road sign, "[d]espite," and contrasts the singer's "disappointment" with what she felt about spending more time with her children. Predict that she was relieved or happy to see more of her family. Jubilant, (G), means “very happy” and is correct. Rueful, (H), means “regretful” and is the opposite of what you need. Apathetic, (I), means “lacking in care or interest.” This also runs counter to the prediction.

Now you know that she felt both "disappointment" and happiness. For the first two blanks, predict that one emotion is positive and the other is negative and find a pair of words that match this dual prediction. For the first blank, dolor, (A), means “sadness.” For the second blank, felicity, (F), means “happiness.” These two words work together to complete the sentence logically and are the correct answers. Complaisance, (B), means “eagerness to please others,” and lethargy, (C), means “sluggishness” or “drowsiness.” Listlessness, (D), is similar in meaning to lethargy, signifying “lacking energy or spirit.” Quiescence, (E), means “being at rest” or “in a state of inactivity.”

Sometimes it is easier to start with the second or third blank. In the last part of the sentence, you have the key word “exacerbating,” which means “making worse.” The situation that the coaching staff is in, therefore, is bad and becoming worse. For the third blank, predict bad or risky. Parlous, (G), which means “dangerous,” provides the right meaning and is correct. Inconsequential, (H), means “insignificant,” and amenable, (I), means “agreeable.” Neither choice matches the prediction.

Working your way backward, consider the second blank, which describes the fans who are putting the coaches at risk. Angry is a good prediction, and highly incensed, (D), means "very upset." Less critical, (E), and more accepting, (F), are both contrary to the prediction and would not explain why the situation was being exacerbated.

The detour road sign "[d]espite" sets up a contrast between the team owner's comments and the fans' angry reaction. Predict that the coach made positive or diplomatic comments. Conciliatory, (B), means “appeasing” or “attempting to reconcile.” One who is conciliatory would try to make the fans less angry, making (B) correct. If the owner made unrepentant comments, as in (A), she would fail to express regret or take responsibility for the situation the fans are angry about, and such comments would be expected to make them more angry. Impudent, (C), meaning “rude” or “insulting,” is also the opposite of the prediction.

If district boundaries are designed to protect incumbents —that is, those already in office—then victory for those incumbents should be close to assured or inevitable. Ineluctable is synonymous with these words. Invidious means "causing envy" and plangent means "full of lamentation," neither of which is as well supported as the credited response. The second blank comes after a couple of transition words. The first is Of course, which might sound like the passage is continuing in the same direction, but here indicates a change of direction: The author is conceding that sometimes incumbents face challenges. The second, Nevertheless, also changes direction, meaning that the passage has returned to where it started, arguing that elections are essentially decided before they begin. That is what merely denouement means. Seldom nugatory means rarely inconsequential, which is the opposite of what the passage calls for; remarkably contentious is wrong for the same reason, as that phrase would indicate that the general election is fiercely contested.

The first sentence presents a positive opinion Cooper has about his new novel: it is "charming." But “[n]otwithstanding” is a detour road sign that indicates Cooper feels his new novel compares poorly to his earlier novels. Specifically, those books were "more profound" than the latest work, in Cooper's estimation. Note the detour road sign "less" before the blank and predict a positive word with a somewhat similar meaning as profound. Insightful, (E), matches the prediction and is correct. Nothing in the text points to the new work being less innovative, (A), than the others, as a story that is not particularly "profound" might still be "inventive." If anything, the new book is more superficial than the earlier, "more profound" ones, so eliminate (B). Since the latest novel is described as having a “charming story,” it would not make sense to say it is less delightful, (C). There is no information in the text about how fanciful, (D), or "imaginary or whimsical," the new work is, so eliminate this choice as well.

The passage describes how the initial enthusiasm and ideological support for the Iraq War, which was driven by "nationalistic excitement and ideological hubris," gradually gave way to a more grim and obligated perspective as the realities of the war (such as the increasing death toll) became undeniable. The phrase "staying the course" and "refusing to cut and run" suggests that, over time, the public's support was no longer driven by the initial ideals but by a sense of obligation, despite the growing recognition of the war's harsh realities. Therefore, the correct answer is that public opinion shifted from ideologically driven support to sheer obligation.

The term "The War of Imagination" refers to the perception of the Iraq War that was driven by nationalistic excitement, ideological hubris, and idealistic visions of spreading democracy. The author contrasts this imagined, idealized version of the war with the grim reality that unfolded. The "War of Imagination" was built on ideological and idealistic motivations rather than on the realities of the conflict. Therefore, the most accurate description is that it was a war founded on popular intrigue and idealistic motivations.
A) This option suggests the war is purely a fantasy, which isn't accurate because the war was real, but its perception was distorted.
B) This option suggests creative tactics are central to victory, which isn't the focus of the passage.
C) This option implies deliberate deception, which isn't explicitly stated.
E) This option suggests a conflict between civilians and politicians, which isn't the central theme.
Therefore, D is the correct answer.

• Abrasive: Showing little concern for the feelings of others; harsh.
• Conciliatory: Intended or likely to placate or pacify.
• Belligerent: Hostile and aggressive.
• Haughty: Arrogantly superior and disdainful.
• Amiable: Having or displaying a friendly and pleasant manner.

The sentence describes a positive management style that boosts morale and productivity. "Conciliatory" and "amiable" both imply a friendly, peace-making approach conducive to collaboration. The other options imply negativity or authoritarianism, which do not fit the context.

Let us try to understand the meaning of the sentence from the partial information.

The sentence states that the parliament made a certain kind of return on Monday, and the senators were chirpy and guffawed through the question period. The words chirpy (cheery) and guffaw (chuckle/laugh) tell us that the mood in the parliament was lively and light, so the fill-in, which describes the kind of return that the parliament made, must be a positive word that means the environment was "happy" and "exuberant". The word exuberant can be a good fill-in.
Now, let us look at the meaning of the adjectives in the options.
A. rambunctious – uncontrollably exuberant; boisterous
B. opprobrious – expressing scorn or criticism
C. staid – sedate, respectable, and unadventurous
D. unflagging – tireless; persistent
E. ebullient – cheerful and full of energy
Both 'rambunctious' and 'ebullient' fit in the blank well. The words 'lugubrious' and 'opprobrious' are negative and therefore do not fit in the blank. 'Staid' and 'unflagging' are unrelated to the meaning of the sentence and therefore do not convey the correct meaning.

The correct answers are A and E.

• Quiescent: In a state or period of inactivity or dormancy.
• Intrepid: Fearless; adventurous (often used for rhetorical or humorous effect).
• Apathetic: Showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern.
• Intemperate: Having or showing a lack of self-control; immoderate.
• Audacious: Showing a willingness to take surprisingly bold risks.

The sentence describes the protagonist as adventurous and enthusiastic about life's uncertainties. "Intrepid" and "audacious" both describe someone who is bold and willing to take risks, fitting the context well. The other options imply passivity or lack of control, which do not fit the description of the protagonist.

The passage contrasts the two sectors by noting that while manufacturing saw a return to pre-war conditions with few women remaining in jobs, agriculture experienced an increase in women’s employment despite popular media urging a return to domestic roles. This suggests that the main difference was in the attitude of the popular media toward women's employment in each sector. The passage does not provide details on the rate of expansion (A), percentage of male employees (B), wage trends (C), or women's job satisfaction (E), so these options are less relevant.

The passage indicates that while women’s employment in manufacturing jobs largely ended after the war, women’s involvement in agriculture continued to grow. This shows that the increase in women’s employment was more enduring in agriculture than in manufacturing. The passage does not support statements about women’s preferences for returning to domestic life (A), the predominance of women in manufacturing (B), or a large-scale transfer from manufacturing to agriculture (C). Option E is not supported as the passage does not compare the media's forcefulness during and after the war.

Say,

the area of the square = a²; where a = side of the square

the area of the circle = πr²; where r = radius of the circle

We have a²  =πr²
⇒ a = √πr
⇒ a > r
Side of the square is greater than the radius of the circle.

Quantity A:

Perimeter of the square = 4a = 4√πr = 4 × 1.77 × r = 7r
Quantity B:

Circumference of the circle = 2πr = 6.28r
We see that 7r > 6.28r.

Quantity A is greater than Quantity B.

Note that for a square and a circle having equal area, the side of the square is greater than the radius of the circle, and the perimeter of the square is greater than the circumference of the circle.

Conversely, for a square whose side is equal to the radius of the circle, the area of the square is less than the area of the circle.

The correct answer is option A.

We know that there are three sides of a cuboid. Say the sides are a,b & c unit.

Thus, the total surface area of the cuboid = 2(ab + bc + ca).

We have to compare the value of 2(ab + bc + ca) against 25 such that (a + b + c) = 6 and a, b & c are integers.

Let's try to compute the maximum possible value of 2(ab + bc + ca); if the computed value of 2(ab + bc + ca) <  25, we have an answer as option B; however, if the computed value of 2(ab + bc + ca)>25, then we must compute the minimum possible value of 2(ab + bc + ca) too. If the minimum possible value of 2(ab + bc + ca) is also greater than 25, then we have an answer as option A. Else the answer is Option D.

Note that if the sum of three numbers is constant, here 6, the product of the numbers would be maximum only if the numbers are equal.

⇒ The product of a,b & c would be maximum if a = b = c = 63 = 2.

⇒ The maximum possible value of 2(ab + bc + ca)
=2(2 × 2 + 2 × 2 + 2 × 2) = 24
We see that Quantity B (= 25) is greater than Quantity A (= 24).

There can be two more combinations of the sides of the cuboid:

a = 1;b = 2;c = 3
Needless to state that the value of 2(ab+bc+ca) would be less than 24.

Let's compute that.

2(ab + bc + ca) = 2(1 × 2 + 2 × 3 + 1 × 3) = 22 < 24
a = 1;b = 1;c = 4
Needless to state that the value of 2(ab+bc+ca) would be less than 24.

Let's compute that.

2(ab + bc + ca) = 2(1 × 1 + 1 × 4 + 1 × 4) = 18 < 24
The correct answer is option B.